Bailey v. Ingram et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition 87 is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court; 2. The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defe ndants Bugg, Ingram, and Bottom [[84, 85 ] are GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff David Wayne Baileys First Amendment retaliation claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bugg, Ingram, and Bottom are DISMISSED; 4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STICKEN from the Courts active docket; 5. Judgment in favor of the defendants will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 11/21/2018.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)
DAVID WAYNE BAILEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY INGRAM, et al.,
Defendants.

***

***

Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-279-CHB
ORDER ADOPTING
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ON
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

***

***

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition of United States
Magistrate Judge Edward Atkins [R. 87], addressing the Motions for Summary Judgment filed
by Defendants Kevin Bugg, Randy Ingram, and Don Bottom. [R. 84, R. 85] No objections were
filed.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the
recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no
objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . .” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151
(1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition are also
barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United
States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 94950 (6th Cir. 1981).
Magistrate Judge Atkins’ Recommended Disposition required objections to be filed
within fourteen (14) days of being served a copy. [R. 87 at p. 8] The time to file objections has
passed, and no party has filed any objections to the Recommended Disposition nor sought an
-1-

extension of time to do so. See Id.; Fed. R. Crim P. 59(b). Nevertheless, this Court has examined
the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition.
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Disposition [R. 87] is ADOPTED as

the Opinion of this Court.
2.

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Bugg, Ingram,

and Bottom [R. 84, R. 85] are GRANTED.
3.

Plaintiff David Wayne Bailey’s First Amendment retaliation claims asserted

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bugg, Ingram, and Bottom are DISMISSED.
4.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STICKEN from the

Court’s active docket.
5.

Judgment in favor of the defendants will be entered contemporaneously with this

Order.
This the 21st day of November, 2018.

cc: COR
Pro se Plaintiff
-2-